(The Scientist, Vol:7, #18, p.12, September 20, 1993. Copyright,
The Scientist, Inc.)
Reprinted in Essays of an Information Scientist: Of Nobel
Class, women in science, Citation Classics, and other essays,
Vol:15, p.425, 1992-93

In The Scientist's Sept. 6, 1993, edition (page 11), Penn
State's
Rustum Roy discussed today's science publishing environment.
Although the
thought-provoking essay carried a broad headline--"Science
Publishing Is Urgently In
Need Of Reform"--Roy's criticism centered on the comparatively
narrow
subject of peer review by scientific journals. There, at the heart
of it, is where
he wants to see reform.

Using dramatic generalizations in characterizing the process of
judging a research paper's worthiness, he suggested that peer
review--as
practiced by some journals--both reflects and sustains a number of
social problems
that exist within the scientific community. He assailed the process
as an
unfair, time-wasting, and potentially humiliating ritual that
frequently
inhibits rather than catalyzes the dissemination of valuable
research findings. He
lambasted the "peers" who do the reviewing, suggesting they are apt
to be, at
best, unqualified or irrelevant, or, at worst, motivated by bias
and self-interest.

Well, I empathized with his point of view and acerbic candor. The
peer-review process isn't perfect, and, undoubtedly, Roy's
objections resonated
in the minds of many readers who, like me, have experienced
arbitrary or
inordinate delays in publication or have been subjected to
flippant, unsubstantiated
comments or unreasonable demands for additional work on a report.
(Recently, I
responded to such treatment by sending my manuscript to an
alternative journal,
where it was immediately accepted.)

Instances or patterns of sloppiness in peer review certainly call
for reform; all communities, including the science community, need
continually to
reexamine their traditions--no matter how venerable or widely
accepted--to make
sure they are properly serving their inhabitants. However, I cannot
go along with
the notion, as expressed in the headline given to Roy's essay, that
all
"science publishing" urgently needs reform. And I wouldn't want
The Scientist's readers
to think that I do.

As Roy noted, today's world of science publishing embraces a wide
array of specialized journals, science-oriented magazines,
newspapers, and
so forth. They serve audiences comprising everyone from the
dedicated researcher
to the reader with a pure fascination with, if little knowledge of,
sophisticated
science. Indeed, for my part, I experience a sort of love-hate
relationship
with the stack of back reading that always seems to confront me in
my office and
home study. I would love to read all the publications, cover to
cover, and I hate
to give up the pleasure and enrichment they offer because of a lack
of time or
energy.

Add to this the steady flow of engaging and important books from
publishing houses around the globe, and you have a universe of
"science
publishing" that, at least in terms of the information it provides
to scientists and
the lay public, appears to be getting more robust and valuable by
the day.
This is not a phenomenon or process generally in need of reform!

For that matter, as far as the prohibitive or delaying nature of
peer review goes, it is difficult to argue that a scientist having
significant
research to communicate will find it impossible to get a report
published
today, when enough journals exist to accommodate an annual output
of more than a
million papers. And there's another emerging component in the
"science publishing"
category these days that promises to speed up the dissemination of
research
findings: Many scientists are finding electronic publication of
preprints and the
distribution of fax copies as a quick and efficient means of
rapidly making
their findings known to colleagues and thus establish their
priority of discovery
or invention.

If the peer review process is deficient and needs correction in the
case of one publication or another, let's address the matter with
a dedicated
desire for improvement. Let's not allow our impatience with peer
review's
imperfection to obscure the fact that in a world increasingly
needing to be
informed on scientific issues and activities, science publishing
overall is
making a monumentally valuable contribution.

(The Scientist, Vol:7, #18, p.12, September 20, 1993)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
Reprinted in Essays of an Information Scientist: Of Nobel
Class, women in science, Citation Classics, and other essays,
Vol:15, p.425, 1992-93

WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT
ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE
FOLLOWING ADDRESSES:
garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu
71764.2561@compuserve.com